Bwahaha! It's a good day. Supreme Court triple slam dunks liberalism!

[boedicca]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

Then you should not support any of the Obama appointees, including the Wise Latina.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Shocking!

The SCOTUS rules on behalf of big business once again.

Who'da thunk?

All the ruling does is requires them to refile the class action, probably by limiting the class in a certain way, or forces the individuals to file discrimination suits on thier own.

The unanimous ruling was on the procedure of how the class action was created, and they found it unacceptable.

What I find disturbing is that the circuit court basically allowed this to continue, and got smacked down 9-0 on thier ruling. It makes me concerned about bias in the district court.

CONCERNED?

Dude! They call it the 9th CIRCUS Court for a reason!

 

[AllieBaba]

This thread is GREAT!!!!

I think I'll take a break and put a hot pack on my dog's boobs now...ttyl.

 

[teapartysamurai]

This thread is GREAT!!!!

I think I'll take a break and put a hot pack on my dog's boobs now...ttyl.

Too much information!

 

[AllieBaba]

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, right.

What constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DOES have the "chops" to be on the Supreme Court in your opinion?

I can't wait to hear the crickets from you in response to that question.

You don't think Roberts is a conservative?

And "Constitutional Literalist"?

What a joke.

This is what libs do. They pretend you said something else when they know they are backed into a corner.

I ASKED what constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DO you think has the chops to be on the USSC?

You won't answer the question, revealing your agenda.

What answer what are you expecting?

No Conservative that supports the current configuration of today's military is a "Constitutional Literalist".

 

[The Rabbi]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

You dont think Kagan and the wise Latina Vagina are not ideologues? Guess again, sancho.

 

[The Rabbi]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

That's right, because non-liberals shouldn't be allowed to hold offices of power.

Down with free speech, down with liberty, down with democracy! Only anti-Christian liberals should be allowed to ascend.....

I don't have a problem with Roberts. He's pretty conservative. But I think he's got the chops to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Well thank you very much. We can all rest assured now that you've given Roberts your approval.
Dolt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The walmart decision was not all unnanimous.

How is no one voting against something not unanimous?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

Two unanimous decisions and a refusal to hear an appeal are proof that 3 Justices are incompetent?

I think this actually proves you are a hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

two different cases in Wal Mart. 9-0 in the issue of class action, as there was no unifying action or policy from wal mart they could point to as discriminatory, as much of the policy was delegated.

Individual stores had problems, and cases can procede against the individual stores. But it can be pointed out that the stores with problems acted contrary to stated company policy if there were violations.

The greenhouse gas thing is about judges making law parallel to the legislative and executive process. A huge win for common sense.

The acorn case is more problematic. It amounts to a bill of attainder. Congress said they can't get money because we think they broke the law.

Congress has the power to cut off funding for any reason, or no reason at all. All the court did was acknowledge that, under the Constitution, it has no power to second guess decisions delegated to Congress itself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thomas has never recused himself when he obviously should have.

Which would have made the decision 8-0, and changed not a single thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

Then you should not support any of the Obama appointees, including the Wise Latina.

Anyone he agrees with is not an ideologue.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You don't think Roberts is a conservative?

And "Constitutional Literalist"?

What a joke.

This is what libs do. They pretend you said something else when they know they are backed into a corner.

I ASKED what constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DO you think has the chops to be on the USSC?

You won't answer the question, revealing your agenda.

What answer what are you expecting?

No Conservative that supports the current configuration of today's military is a "Constitutional Literalist".

Yeah, well I hate to break it to you but it was during the DEMOCRAT HARRY S. TRUMAN's admiistration that the Airforce was created.

Maybe you need to take it up with the Democrats!

 

[kiwiman127]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

The decision was unanimous.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

Yeah Yeah, it doesn't matter that both liberal AND conservatives on the court agreed in this decision, it's all just terrible and it means disaster because such a legal whizkid like YOU does not agree!

 

[Dr.House]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

Which ones, in your opinion, are idealogues?

 

[jillian]

Front page of Drudge Report!

UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!

I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!

I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!

But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!

So, what will be the flip flop on these?

I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.

So, which flip flop will we get on this one?

I can't wait to hear!

you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".

i think it suits the rightwingnuts.

and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Front page of Drudge Report!

UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!

I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!

I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!

But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!

So, what will be the flip flop on these?

I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.

So, which flip flop will we get on this one?

I can't wait to hear!

you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".

i think it suits the rightwingnuts.

and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.

Here again we have the same liberal spin.

Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.

Typical!